Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Looks like it's awards season. I don't usually get too involved in awards drama, but it looks like we're getting a lot of updates to a lot of pages, and these are going to need to be sourced. Also, it looks like a few new pages are being created, such as 2015 Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards. I can't help but notice that neither Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards nor Boston Online Film Critics Association exist at the time of my writing this message. So, get ready for a deluge of non-notable awards and awards pages, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random facts: According to whois.net the award site was created in 2011. I only see three news articles mentioning "Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards". They seem to occur circa Feb/March 2014 and are written in Italian. The article was created by this guy who seems to edit primarily in film award articles, many of which lack any attempt to establish notability, like National Board of Review Awards 2015, Art Directors Guild Awards 2014, (this one may have some legs, since I notice that a related template was created in 2006. I dunno.) Costume Designers Guild Awards 2014, and so on. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper, there was some kind of drama over their winners list, so it's at least conceivable that the BOFCA is notable. But I'm not too keen on awards-by-year and best actor/actress/film sub-articles for every regional critics society. If we had a guideline on that, I think it would help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be somewhat helpful to look into the people behind the award. If the site is run by people who have some expertise in the field, and if some major sites are acknowledging their awards (as it appears may be happening) then maybe they're worth considering. I do fear, however, that any start-up award can get publicity through the dissemination of clever press releases. Any controversial counter-opinion ultimately means more page hits for the reporting site, so maybe they like award start-ups? I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, not sure if you were around before, but there have been a number of debates here at WT:FILM about awards organization articles. The biggest challenge about these organizations is that not a lot is written about them directly. Periodicals do report the recognitions that come out of such organizations. Generally speaking, an organization should satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH to have its own article. However, that guideline does say, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." In the case of BOFCA, there is a lack of in-depth coverage, but numerous periodicals, including trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, have reported that organization's recognitions. The problem is that the coverage is essentially just list of awards. We could either have a consensus to permit such award articles based on multiple shallow sources or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For many of them, it's tough for me to say whether they're notable or not. There's usually some kind of minor coverage in their home town newspaper, and their glorified press releases often get highly replicated across reliable sources. If there isn't even that much, then, yeah, I'd say it's a clear delete. Obviously, a bunch of press releases isn't enough for orgdepth/gng, but I'm willing to stretch the rules a little when there's something to supplement it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mess developing over at Brooklyn (film) and I can't get to it right now, if anyone wants to clean it up. Lapadite (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Luckily, that seems to have cleared up. Going through the article history, it looks like someone was adding the standard "universal acclaim" puffery. I think I'm too tired right now, but I'll see if I can source those awards later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, I think that an awards organization could be considered notable if there are multiple notable RS reporting on the results. IE, if at least 4-5 RS like Twitch Film and the NYT report the award results, that can be a sign of notability even if they're just reprinting a basic list. If it's an article-article, then so much the better. I've noticed that especially lately, many of the major film websites tend to skip reporting results of all but the more well known organizations because there's just so many of them nowadays and there seems to be more and more coming up all the time. The organizations might be serious and not award factories like some of the stuff out there (meaning that they only give out about 20-30 awards or less a year) but it's not exactly hard for places to launch nowadays. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest editors watch List of accolades received by Carol (film) for indiscriminate entries. There have been some non-notable minor awards cited to unreliable sources since before the list was split. On that note, I figure AwardsDaily is a reliable source for this context, as one of its editors is Sasha Stone, who's written for various industry magazines. Lapadite (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Looking for some guidance as I'm new to editing in general and haven't edited any articles about a film before, so it's hard for me to gauge what sources meet WP:Reliable. Seems like every website about movies that comes up in a google search allows user-generated content. I'm going to be vague about what articles I'm talking about b/c I don't want to make a wikipedia etiquette faux pas. The other day I came across a huge article dedicated to a movie that I'm 99% positive never actually existed. Since 2011, the same 4 usernames have been contributing exclusively to this article and several other equally suspicious articles that are all about movies, TV shows and books that were supposedly written by the same person. This one movie claims a​ HUGE cast made up of some big-name celebs and gospel singers (if you know gospel singers, I assume, based on the verifiable and reliable references in their own wikipedia articles), plus a few no-name cast members that are clearly the writer's friends and family. The same 4 sockpuppets have gone to each celebrity's article and added this movie to their filmography citing the movie's "official" homepage, IMDb and YouTube. When people have challenged these edits on their favorite celebrity's' article, 1 or 2 of these users will reply quickly with links to more sources, always websites with user-generated content. Almost every single one of the film credits has stuck. If it's not real, I feel bad for this one gospel singer that had a fan/family member that tried to remove this film credit from his article, but the the other person gave up after one these accounts shared a link to a YouTube video that's supposedly the first 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to falsely accuse someone of inventing a an elaborate online presence for books and movies that never existed, so can anyone point me to some online resources that are without a doubt WP:RELIABLE for lists of movies by actor or by production company? Thanks in advance! Permstrump (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Edited to be more neutral. Permstrump (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's as bad as you say, there is no faux pas about bring it up. Please provide the list of articles and editors so we can have a looksie. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) Are you sure I'm not going to get in trouble?? The one movie is America: A Call to Greatness. If you think I'm crazy after checking it out, then this will stop here. :)

There are a whole lot of websites out there that mention this movie, but none of them meet WP:RELIABLE, as far as I can tell. The majority allow user-generated content or mirror wikipedia and imdb. But there are also websites that mention it that are definitely unrelated to the writer, like fan pages, etc. And journalists for some local papers have mentioned in a list of other notable works by a certain celebrity. I have a hunch that they're basing their info on the filmography from wikipedia and imdb, but I can't be 100% certain. Take Charlton Heston for example... This movie shows up in his filmography on a lot of websites, but it's NOT in his filmography on The Washington Post, New York Times, TCM or Rotten Tomatoes. Is it missing from those lists because the movie doesn't exist or could it have been an oversight or maybe those aren't exhaustive lists? He's the only one I've looked up so far, but it's too time consuming to do that for everyone. I wish there was one website where I could look it up and know definitively that the movie never existed and put it to rest. Permstrump (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing. Permstrump appears to have stumbled upon an astonishing network of articles devoted to the deification of one Warren Chaney, all created and maintained by a ... surprising, let's say ... number of editors with a shared interest in Mr Chaney, early television and film, and with occasional dabblings in neural science (a subject Mr Chaney also happens to have written about). Now, I've spent the last couple of hours down this rabbit hole, and it seems to me that most of Chaney's projects do actually exist in some form or another, including the film to which Permastrump refers: America: A Call to Greatness. That actually is Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Peter Graves et al in the Youtube clip, and they are in something called America: A Call to Greatness. However, it's not entirely clear what that something is. It comes across like a short film that plays at the beginning of a museum tour than something that lasts a couple of hours (indeed, that clip ends with a credits roll after about ten minutes). There's no hard evidence that this is what it purports to be, and I would say there is not one reliable source that can verify its existence as a bona fide film. Everything goes back to user-generated or self-published content, and to obvious socks of someone with a desire to see Chaney lauded as a lost great of American cinema. Seriously, this goes everywhere; there are IMDB accounts dedicated solely to rating projects this guy's been involved in, accounts here there and everywhere dedicated to writing about the same. Even our article on Buzz Aldrin mentions the guy. I don't even know where to begin unravelling this stuff. Picking one of his other projects at random: Behind the Mask (1992), which is a cheapo six part serial experiment, now inexplicably lauded in our article: "Warren Chaney won the Best Director and Best Screenplay CineCon ’92 Award and a Best Screenplay American Cinema Award ... Deborah Winters was nominated for Best Actress and Luis Lemas as Best Supporting Actor." That seems unlikely, as CineCon is a classic film festival that doesn't even play films as recent as that (full list). Similarly, there's no evidence to suggest the film "received the Silver Award in the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival" and "a Bronze Medal Award in the New York Film Festival", and I've looked. This is a pattern with every project and person ever associated with Chaney: some cheapo, marginal production blown up way beyond its significance with half truths and outright lies by a succession of determined editors over many, many years. What to do about it will likely be debated for a good long while. Steve ^T • C 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also taken a brief look and find much of the article to be dubious if not simply an overblown hagiography of Mr. Warren Chaney. I agree that there are too many details which do not add up. For one small example, the article quotes a review by a Winston J. Aaronson of Screen Times Magazine -- a review which also appears on the "movie" website. However, I find no existence for the magazine and the only hits on google for a Winston J. Aronson were these uploads to Open Library for unknown books by Warren Chaney. Aronson is likely an internet alias for Chaney or a close associate? I suggest the entire mess be taken to WP:AFD for a clear discussion of possible violations of WP:Walled Garden, WP:ADVERTISING and lack of WP:Notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps take the matter to WP:ANI as well? I believe they've addressed hoaxes in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to admit that I'm glad other people fell down the rabbit hole too, because I’ve been here all by myself since Sunday. It’s like the Twilight Zone. But honestly, I’m relieved to have validation, because I was starting to doubt myself, especially b/c Heston and Rooney clearly say "America, a call to greatness" on the YouTube video. I couldn’t tell anymore if I was losing my mind or if it was all as nutty as it seems.

Steve, I had the same exact thought process after watching the youtube video. I’ve come to the conclusion that he took that footage a 1994 documentary called A Century of Cinema… Assuming that one really exist, the imdb page lists both Charlton and Mickey in the credits as “self.” There might be more crossover in the cast, but I stopped looking after I saw those two. I feel like it would be a lot more obvious if our writer had dubbed over the audio, but maybe he just did a really great job with that one thing and that’s what inspired him to go all out with the film's internet debut. I think he spliced scenes from A Century of Cinema with obscure televised broadcasts of gospel singers/choirs (probably recorded back-to-back on same VHS) and then some random footage of his friends and family that he "directed." Btw, did you realize Deborah Winters is his wife? Check out her wikipedia article. Sound familiar? I do think she's actually had minor parts in a few real movies.

I read this page about bundling AFDs to nominate multiple related pages for deletion at the same time, so I was thinking that probably applies to this situation. CactusWriter, does that make the most sense for the next step or would I start with WP:ANI as Erik suggested? I want to learn how to do these things, so I’m not beating around the bush, secretly hoping someone else will do it for me (just so you know), so I appreciate everyone's advice about how to move forward (especially if there's a way to maximize the number of people who can enjoy this before it’s gone… at least from Wikipedia). Permstrump (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know Permstrump there have been elaborate hoax articles in the past Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival are good examples. Both of these had corresponding pages at IMDb and they did not remove them there until the hoax was discovered here. Sadly IMDb does almost zero fact checking when items are submitted and that is why we have WP:RS/IMDB. I would like to suggest that you consider posting at either the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before posting at AN/I. It isn't that you can't post there it is just that posts at AN/I are meant to be a "last resort that needs attention ASAP" and they sometimes get ignored if other venues haven't been tried first. I am not sure which of the two I've mentioned would be better. Maybe other editors will chime in with their thoughts. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. MarnetteD|Talk 02:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, That's all really helpful, thanks! (Also interesting to read about the other hoaxes!) I will start with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because that one seems like it's been a little more lively recently than the living persons noticeboard. Permstrump (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permstrump, I also think it is good advice not to jump directly to the drama at the ANI board until it is clear what we have here. As User:Steve notes, the existence of Chaney and some of his projects are not in question -- but rather how much of the text is hoaxy or fraudulent. If the amount is too extensive (which is appearing to be the case), than my own inclination would be to delete the articles and only allow recreation (if any) from scratch. However, as an administrator, I'd need to see that demonstrated first. A single AFD on America: A Call to Greatness would be the best start. I find AFDs with multiple nominations are often messy and fail to reach consensus. A focused deletion discussion can come to a consensus on the extent of the hoax material -- and then, given the evidence from the AFD, broader administrative decisions can be made on what to do about the SPA accounts (block, bans, warnings, etc.) and other articles. The RS noticeboard would also be helpful here. As you say, this is a real rabbit hole and it has been going on since 2011, so it will take a little time to investigate and correct. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CactusWriter, thanks for the advice about not bundling AFDs. I think that makes a lot of sense here especially, since all of the pages are technically for distinct works across genres, even though they're all technically connected by the same writer/director/producer/actor, Warren H. Chaney. FWIW I ended up posting on the BLP noticeboard instead of the RS noticeboard, because it looked like the RS noticeboard was to ask for help deciding if a reference was reliable. I think it's pretty clear that there aren't any reliable sources in this article, so I wasn't sure what question I would be asking them. P.S. I know I'm splitting hairs, but I just can't see how America: A Call to Greatness ever existed beyond a 10 minute YouTube video. I agree that the rest of the articles related to Chaney's film/TV "career" seem to have a grain of truth to them. I'm not positive about his books though. I'm just thinking aloud, not trying to debate it here. It's hard to hold it in. :) Permstrump (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this. Perhaps we should start a non-mainspace page dedicated to listing all the relevant articles and excising or deleting as needed? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I wasn't sure how long to wait before making an AfD since I'm the one who initiated the discussion here and didn't want it to be perceived as [that Wikipedia term I'm forgetting for recruiting like-minded people to a debate about an article]. I don't know if that was a legitimate concern, but now I don't have to hem and haw about it, so thanks, CactusWriter! Erik, I've never seen that done before. How does it work?

FWIW these are the active actions/discussions related Warren H. Chaney that I'm aware of: 1) AfD for an article on his book Dynamic Mind, 2) this discussion, 3) a hoax template at the top of America: A Call to Greatness, 4) a blurb about my concerns on Talk:America: A Call to Greatness and a little bit of discussion about a specific BLP that I need to figure out how to merge with 5) the post on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about how to handle the numerous celebrities that have America: A Call to Greatness or other Chaney "productions" erroneously attributed to them on their BLP. Permstrump (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a rabbit hole. Copying some of what I wrote at the above AfD as it seems more appropriate here: Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile. The first thing I checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145. Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal. Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008. "Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops. Before coming across this discussion I also started to check out some Chaney-related articles and discovered what others did -- a preponderance of sources which either don't seem to exist, are based on user-generated content, or which have a direct (albeit often hidden) connection to Chaney himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sinclairindex, primarily responsible for several of these articles including the one on Chaney himself, claims to know Chaney... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Sinclairindex is the main SPA to have edited these articles and uploaded images from all of Chaney's "films". It might be worth having someone on the OTRS team look at what the tickets consist of, where the permissions for the files he or she uploaded came from. Steve ^T • C 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Orangemike, who noticed some issues with the Call to Greatness article a few years ago (which Sinclairindex removed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. This is pretty much one of Wikipedia's worst nightmares. I've nominated Space Patrol Chronicles for AfD here and I have a feeling that this will likely end with all of the articles getting deleted. I also hate to say this... but we should probably treat any and all sources with suspicion unless we can prove that the coverage was real and the end product actually got released. For example, I know that there are one or two news links that discuss the making of the America film, but there's also none that actually confirm that it aired. It wasn't exactly impossible for someone to walk up to a newspaper and make a false claim to be working on something, so that's always a possibility. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am seeing some usable sources for Chaney, but I would actually argue that the article should just be TNT'd and started afresh without all of this promotional garbage in its edit history. If there is some socking or meating going on here, I think that leaving his article history intact would just encourage them to come back and try to revert the edit history. It'd certainly be easier to just take the usable sources and make a new article based on what's in those than to try to search for things that would back up the claims in the article AND try to remove all of the puffery. I don't think that there's any rescuing the Chaney article as it currently stands. We can only re-write it to actually fit guidelines. Also, ping me when you guys do the inevitable SPI so I can give my endorsement. I'm not sure if this is socking or meating, but I find it very difficult to believe that these SPAs are unrelated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh oh... looking through the various talk pages which link back to User:Sinclairindex and -- surprise -- find it happens to be other Chaney-related SPAs making random existence-confirming comments (e.g. "I used to watch this" or "I saw an article about this") on the talk pages (and working on similar articles).

• LawStClaire commented at Talk:Y2K – World in Crisis. The only two pages he/she edited were User:Sinclairindex and this file for deletion discussion about an image of Deborah Winters. Coincidentally, there was a COIN thread about Sinclairindex spamming Deborah Winters-related material.
• Buzzsawyer commented at Talk:Behind the Mask (1992 film), Talk:America: A Call to Greatness, Talk:Intercontinental Releasing Corporation, Talk:Magic Mansion, . Also coincidentally into neuroplasticity and memory. Also happened to upload a bunch of Chaney images.... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm running into issues with the Magic Mansion article. A search is bringing up zip to show that this show is notable. Hell, I can't even really guarantee that this even really exists. There's a mention here but the book was published in 2014, years after the article was written. Given that this supposedly ran for 100+ episodes you'd think that there would be something out there that isn't primary or dodgy as hell. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tokyogirl79, the only sock on my list that you didn't mention is Neverland1 who, in an interesting twist, initially made a weak attempt to contest deletion on Dbrodbeck's AfP for Dynamic Mind (also by Chaney), but after we went through each source one by one and shot down single one of them, waived his flag of surrender without much of a fight. It makes me wonder how the rest of this will play out. It will certainly be anticlimactic if we wake up tomorrow and find that all of these pages have been mysteriously deleted. Permstrump (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone created a thread on Imdb/getsatisfaction about this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created an SPI for the SPA accounts. If anyone runs across more, please add them or you can notify me to do so. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Magic Mansion is now up for AfD here. I've lumped the episode list article in the AfD as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Y2K – World in Crisis is now up for AfD as well. Other articles that still need to be examined are as follows:

1. Haunted (1991 film)
2. Into the Spider's Web
3. The Hidden Jungle
4. The Lamp (1986 film)
5. The Broken Spur
6. Intercontinental Releasing Corporation
7. Behind the Mask (1992 film)

This is of course not including the articles for Chaney and his wife Winters. In any case, the above were all created by Sinclairindex and assuming that any of these do actually exist and may pass notability guidelines, I'd recommend deleting them and starting them from scratch given that we've clear evidence that we very likely cannot trust anything from this editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd do them myself, but I'm going close to 24 hours without sleep and am about to crash. Although if the SPI comes back positive then we could probably sweet talk an uninvolved admin into just TNT-ing the lot just because we can't trust any of these to be factual or notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It also looks like The Outing (film) is somewhat related to this, as it's the same film as The Lamp, just edited if the claims are true. I'll check on sources for this when I wake up, if no one else does it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for laying it all out like this and the AfD's you started! I'm about to start responding to your new AfDs and dealing with the inappropriate references to this film on the 28+ BLPs of its cast members, starting with Buzz Aldrin. I can't decide if I should tag it as disputed or delete this movie completely from their filmographies. I was leaning towards tagging them, so the depth of this problem would be readily apparent to whatever objective 3rd party has to investigate. Does that make sense or does it sound like a waste of time when they need to be deleted anyway? Permstrump (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sure seems like it might grow into an unwieldy affair, spread out over so many pages and with so much potential evidence. I've tried to gather all the relevant links/pages here: User:Rhododendrites/Chaney. I'd welcome anyone else to edit as they see fit and wouldn't be opposed to moving it out of userspace if someone has a better idea of where it could go. Seems useful to have a place to tie things together and a central point of talk (presumably, User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney or wherever the page ends up). Do what you will -- it's useful for me, at least, to wrap my head around this nonsense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: That looks great! Earlier today Erik suggested moving the conversation to another page, but I didn't have a clue how to go about it. I vote to move the conversation to User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney, so this thread doesn't take up more space on the film project page. Permstrump (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To update everyone, three accounts have been indefinitely banned based on the sockpuppetry investigation. Not sure if there are any articles by these accounts that have not yet gone to AfD, but they could instead be speedied with {{db-banned}}. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik. There are a couple points of order in regards to your post. The editors are WP:BLOCKed not banned. WP:BAN is a different thing altogether. I'm sure most editors know what you are getting at but some might not be aware of the distinction. Next, as to the speedy deletion tag, the guidelines at WP:G5 state "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." As far as I can tell this does not apply to any of the articles that we are dealing with. Don't get me wrong I wish that the {{db-banned}} could be used. But, we will have to proceed with the AFD process for now. Once again my thanks to everyone for all of the work that they are performing in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! Really impressed with the professional clean-up job done by numerous editors here and elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi movie fans! I created a tool that automatically generates the list of Academy Award-winning films using the data from Wikidata. That's a big advantage compared to the current article, which has to be maintained manually. The only problem is that Wikidata lacks Academy Award data. This means that the number of Academy Award-winning films generated by my tool is much lower than the actual number. The same is true for the number of awards and nominations of the listed movies. The reason is Wikidata doesn't have data about many awards and nominations. Now I'm asking you to help make Wikidata more accurate concerning Academy Awards and nominations.

See here for the current list in German. I'm also planning to create an English version (if you're willing to help ;-p). The nice thing is we can all work together on this project because Wikidata is international. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listeria already does this FYI. --Izno (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: used Twinkle to remove wikilinks to the film Cabin in the Sky, [1], saying it was deleted, but the correct article name is Cabin in the Sky (film), so these links need to be restored and corrected. Would someone who uses a automated tool please do this? BMK (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am plugging away on these. If anyone else does (automated or manually) please be aware that, in restoring the links, that some of them should go to the play Cabin in the Sky (play) and not the film. You just have to take a moment and make sure of the context of the article and the section that the link is in. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I got them all. There was also a song from the play/musical with the same title to further complicate things. I am pretty sure I got them linked to the right page but I got a little bleary eyed toward the end so if any are incorrect my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really should be an automated tool to automatically fix the links, and I would've used that instead of I could. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marnette. BMK (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome BMK. As I pondered the situation this morning I don't think this one could have been automated SNUGGUMS. The links were split pretty close to 50/50 between the film and the play (not counting the few that were about songs from either) and I don't know that bots could have been programmed to distinguish between the two. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my brief perusal of them before I turned in I didn't see that, I thought that they were primarily about the film. Good to get that straightened out. BMK (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should magic lanterns be considered a sub-topic of film, and part of this project? It seems to be a significant precursor to modern film. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would think it's more related to photographic slides and their modern descendants. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an MfD nomination in progress for this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of articles about films split box-office figures between "North America" and "outside North America". The practice seems to stem from the fact that the film industry amalgamates US and Canadian ticket sales. Boxofficemojo for instance describes these as "domestic". However, calling the US and Canada together "North America" is an astonishing howler. Mexico, which is also in North America, has a population about three-and-a-half times that of Canada, so we're not talking about a minor difference in terms of ticket sales, here, but of completely skewed figures. I have corrected this on a few articles whenever I have spotted it but @Adamstom.97: has reverted me on Iron Man 2 with the claim that "it is accepted across Wikipedia" so I thought I would ask here. To me this is a clear case of an error spreading memetically, and though it might be the case that Wikpedia editors understand that North America is short-hand in this context for US+CA, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reader to know that. Has this been discussed before? Is there such a policy? Mezigue (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Box office. We do not use the term "Domestic", instead using proper "territory names". In the film industry, a film released in the United States and Canada (such as Iron Man 2) is a "North American" film. Again, this is the industry defining this, not Wikipedia; we follow and use the terms from the industry. Other territory release info, such as in Mexico, would go in an "Outside North America" section, should there be enough info to warrant sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not use "North American" like this in film articles. It is specialist language that we need to avoid on this general and global encyclopedia. "North America" in box office lexicon refers to the United States and Canada only and excludes a host of other North American countries. It is more appropriate and accurate to state "United States and Canada" instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though one flexible approach would be to say "North America (U.S. and Canada)", but with the dispute being section headings, we should go with "United States and Canada". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ok to use "North America" in place of United States and Canada provided it is made clear in the initial usage, since having to write "United States and Canada" every time is laborious. Likewise with the UK market which actually includes the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta(!). Keeping things clear is a necessity in a global enyclopedia, but keeping things concise is also a virtue which whould not be overlooked. I agree with Erik about section headings. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Off-topic There is a discussion about box-office table formats which could do with some further input (several options up for grabs). For those editors with an interest in this sort of thing comments would be welcome at Talk:2015_in_film#Disagrreement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Queen of Ireland (film) to be moved to The Queen of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film)#Requested move 14 December 2015. --Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Costa's article notes that he was born on 3 March 1959. Several of the foreign-language Wikipedias, as well as many internet websites, also give the dates 30 December 1958 and 3 January 1959. Thoughts? I have not been able to adjudicate independently which date is the correct one. Thanks. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous search results in Google Books shows his birth year to be 1959. Not finding anything immediately about the specific month and day. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please write back if you find more information. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a biographical article does not have to show the specific date of birth. We can use a template to use that birth year and estimate his age within 1 year or so. See Alex Tse as an example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3.3.1959 still seems to be the most popular and is also the one appearing on IMDb, so I will leave it at that. I was simply wondering maybe there is someone here who knows for sure... 109.67.195.14 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is popular, it may still be incorrect if we cannot find a reliable source stating it. IMDb is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes because content is user-submitted and likely not closely-reviewed. I would recommend putting just the birth year for now until someone can find a reliable source showing the full birthdate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources I can find for now: 30.12.1958 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); 3.3.1959 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15); 3.1.1959 (1). 109.67.195.14 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed his date of birth on his article to 30.12.1958 for the time being given that the most reliable source I could find online for the time being, Jornal de Notícias, a daily which is one of the oldest in Portugal, states it as true. Please comment if you believe otherwise. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War#Category:2016_films for a discussion on using year categories for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TriiipleThreat is still banging on about this. FFS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am but not for the same issue being raised here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important RfC at WT:ANIME in regards to production companies and anime film articles. The RFC can be found at here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've lately been trying to help improve Wikipedia by trying to cut down on some of the clutter in the production section articles. I find that many such production sections consist mostly of "On (Insert Date here) X joined the cast. On (Insert Date Here) X Joined the cast, and so on and so on some times for paragraphs at a time, Lately, within the past few months or so I've been just deleting these section because the information provided is trivial at best, and the cluttered look, I believe hurts the project more than helps it. Lately I've been running into a few people who think that this is the wrong approach because they say the information of when cast members joined is valuable information that should be kept regardless of the clutter. I'm starting to think that. I may be in the wrong, because I just want to make these articles useful, I don't think I should have to fight about it. So I kinda wanted to get a project wide opinion on this.

I would present to you as an example of what I'm talking about Pete's Dragon. I would say that when compared to something like Inside Out (2015 film)the production section leaves a lot to be desired and has a lot of indiscriminite details that don't belong there.

I don't know I'm getting really sick of fighting these fights and was just hoping that we could all come to a consensus about how these sections should handle casting news. --Deathawk (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought is that it could be reasonably argued that "John Doe joined the cast on MMDDYY" is trivial and probably can be safely removed once a film has been released, though it may be interesting/useful prior to that point. If there's meatier information relating to their casting, then it should probably be retained. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific dates are of little use, however more general time references can be useful for contextual purposes so the reader understands how the film came together. These can also be grouped together depending on the general time so we do not have a bunch of short sentences.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that is there are sources of actors who have appeared in the movie and are appearing in upcoming ones that should be kept in either in the production section or whatever section that they should be in if we're going to make these kinds of changes. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proseline clutter needs to be addressed. The details do not necessarily have to be removed entirely, but at least compressed. Here's an example of what I did at Gods of Egypt (film):

• Before: On 5 June 2013, actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has signed up to star in the film as Horus, a God of the sky. On September 24, 2013, Gerard Butler also joined the film's cast to play the role of Set, a God of the desert, storms and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion. On the same day Geoffrey Rush also closed a deal to join the epic fantasy Gods of Egypt for Summit, he'll play the role of Ra, a God of the Sun and also father of Set and Osiris. Later on 7 October, Summit added Brenton Thwaites as a lead actor in the fantasy film's cast, he will play Bek, a human thief. On December 12, 2013, a new actress Courtney Eaton joined the film as a lead actress, she will be playing the role of Zaya, a slave girl who is cursed by Set. On January 30, 2014, Chadwick Boseman has signed on to star in the film as Thoth, the god of wisdom. On February 19, 2014 Élodie Yung joined the cast of the film as the goddess Hathor. On March 20, all other cast was also revealed as filming began, which includes Bruce Spence, Bryan Brown, Emma Booth, Abbey Lee Kershaw, Rachael Blake, Robyn Nevin, Paula Arundell, Alexander England, Goran D. Kleut and Yaya Deng.
• After: Actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau was cast in June 2013. Gerard Butler, Geoffrey Rush, and Brenton Thwaites joined the cast toward the end of 2013. Chadwick Boseman and Elodie Yung joined the cast at the start of 2014.

Here, I excluded the character names since they can be seen in the "Cast" section and excluded actors who did not receive billing (the last sentence). I identified the first person to join the cast, then I grouped those who joined later that year. I also mentioned another group that joined at the beginning of the year. I applied WP:CITEBUNDLE here as well to avoid multiple footnotes at the end of a sentence. Maybe we do not need the new passage at all, but I think it at least helps frame the "Production" section, like to show that the first actor did not join until a year after the film began development. The problem with the proseline clutter is that sentence after sentence is just tacked on. The content has to be revisited after some growth to determine a cleaner way to present it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on Erik's suggestion, I think the first actors who joined any movie, top listing ones, anyone in the billing bulletin list at theatrical posters and any recurring actors who appeared in any film series should be included with reliable sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a clear case of WP:PROSELINE then that needs to be removed, but in the case of stubs and "start" class article you need to make sure you don't derail the development process. With Pete's Dragon what you basically have is a bare bones article, and the lighthouse stuff may be trivial as it stands but on the other hand it may have relevance if there were more context. I've done quite a bit of development work on stubs and "start" class articles and sometimes I have managed to integrate existing "trivia" into a more coherent article and on other occasions I have dropped it. Sometimes it is hard to tell at first what you are going to use and what you are not. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, I think what Deathawk was referring to is the 2016 remake of Pete's Dragon. And what we need to settle is how to resolve the issues of actors who joined in a film without causing any clashing issues of consensus. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I apologize, I was tired when I composed my initial massage and somehow forgot to include the 2016 at the end of Pete's Dragon. --Deathawk (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should do with the trimmed down casting list Erik suggested? BattleshipMan (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice to have additional members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding including it being known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the lead. (Note this is not a discussion regarding moving the article.) You can find the discussion here, and for those of you sensative to spoilers regarding the film, this section does not have any and you should be able to avoid any on the talk page if you click that link directly and stay at the top of the talk page. (There are a few minor ones at the very bottom currently). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the short film NHAMO has been nominated for deletion. As it has passed through two relisting cycles without any comment, members of the project may wish to take a look and opine on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing everyone the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Have a good one too, Michael. Thanks for all your excellent work over the past year. I think I'll spend the day watching Requiem for a Dream, Stroszek and 21 Grams to get me in the festive mood. Ho ho ho. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zoolander No. 2, an editor tried to move it to Zoolander 2. However, this film's billing block appears to show that the official title is Zoolander No. 2. Can we make this assumption? This says the billing block is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation", so it seems correct to call it Zoolander No. 2 instead of Zoolander 2, though the official website uses the latter. There is a discussion on the talk page here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a topic about turning the Millennium TV miniseries into a film series article instead. You can find more about the situation here. Lucia Black (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.

• Carlson, Mark. Flying on Film: A Century of Aviation in the Movies, 1912–2012. Duncan, Oklahoma: BearManor Media, 2012. ISBN 978-1-59393-219-0.
• Dolan, Edward F. Jr. Hollywood Goes to War. London: Bison Books, 1985. ISBN 0-86124-229-7.
• Farmer, James H. Broken Wings: Hollywood's Air Crashes. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Pub Co., 1984. ISBN 978-0-933126-46-6.
• Farmer, James H. Celluloid Wings: The Impact of Movies on Aviation. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books Inc., 1984. ISBN 978-0-83062-374-7.
• Farmer, James H. "Filming the Right Stuff." Air Classics, Part One: Vol. 19, No. 12, December 1983, Part Two: Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1984.
• Harwick, Jack and Ed Schnepf. "A Buff's Guide to Aviation Movies". Air Progress Aviation, Volume 7, No. 1, Spring 1983.
• Mackenzie, S.P. British War Films, 1939-1945: The Cinema and the Services. London: Continuum, 2001. ISBN 978-1-85285-586-4.
• Murphy, Robert. British Cinema and the Second World War. London: Continuum, 2000. ISBN 978-0-82645-139-2.
• Orriss, Bruce W. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War I. Los Angeles: Aero Associates, 2013. ISBN 978-0-692-02004-3.
• Orriss, Bruce. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War II. Hawthorne, California: Aero Associates Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-9613088-0-X.

• Parish, James Robert. The Great Combat Pictures: Twentieth-Century Warfare on the Screen. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0810823150.
• Pendo, Stephen. Aviation in the Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1985. ISBN 0-8-1081-746-2.
• Silke, James R. "Fists, Dames & Wings." Air Progress Aviation Review, Volume 4, No. 4, October 1980.
• Wynne, H. Hugh. The Motion Picture Stunt Pilots and Hollywood's Classic Aviation Movies. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1987. ISBN 0-933126-85-9. FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I would appreciate some feedback from some of this project's members. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]